“Israel should be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. And it’s our right and duty to decide how to defend ourselves, especially if our national security and even very existence is under threat.”

Any deal with Iran “has to be made on the assumption that (it) may violate it.”

Steinitz claims Israeli military and intelligence officials identified what he called 10 “unanswered questions.”

They include doubts about Iran observing what it agreed to, how quickly sanctions could be reinstated if backtracking occurs, and eventual more advanced centrifuges reducing breakout time to a bomb to three or four months.

“All of our experts are united in their opposition to this bad deal,” Steinitz blustered.

“Certainly, if Iran violates the agreement, all options are on the table related to Iran, including military options.”

On Monday, senior Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer said he’ll back legislation giving Congress vetting power over any final nuclear deal reached – what Obama strongly opposes.

His support appears to give the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act (NWFI) a veto-proof Senate margin. House members overwhelmingly support it.

Enactment could be a deal-breaker. Congress won’t support what Israel and its Lobby reject.

Whether a Security Council resolution supported by P5+1 countries can overcome their damage remains to be seen.

Resolving things responsibly with Iran (short-term at least) hangs in the balance.

Longer-term is an entirely different story given deep-rooted US anti-Iranian sentiment and America’s notorious history of breaching virtually all treaties, conventions, deals and core international laws.

Don’t expect this time to be different. Business as usual is longstanding US policy.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”